Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.movie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Top-level domain#Proposed domains. Merging from history remains possible. Sandstein 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.movie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see why this proposed TLD is an encyclopaedic thing.Nothing in RS other than trivial name-mentions/listings.Our purpose differs from their purpose.A redirect may be warranted. Winged Blades^Godric 05:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Proposed top-level domain that's the right place where it suppose to exist already. Not notable enough for standalone page, but the content is worth keeping per WP:PRESERVE–Ammarpad (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..Good idea but that article is too poorly written and IMO, could itself be succinctly merged into TLD itself:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric You're right, I didn't say it is in good shape and merger process is already for merging the mergeable and redacting the the rest. I must say you could have boldly done this (merge/redirect) without AfD, since you didn't confidently believe it should be deleted right from the beginning. Ammarpad (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad:--AFDs are very helpful, in case you have doubts whether the post-merge redirect will stay.I'm near certain that the creator is an UPE.Notice the creations of 4 redirects to a part. company, out of wjhich one has been developed into a full-blown article by an IP, thus evading ACTRIAL while supposedly evading extra-scrutiny on the user-account.Winged Blades^Godric 11:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @WBG:, I don't how I didn't get this ping, so just seeing it now after relist. Yes, you're right, I actually know that problem and I even recently !voted to oppose redirect (favoring redirect creation with one revision, if necessary and requesting its protection). But I usually do that for pages with no chance of gaining notability on their own right in the offing. That lead us to the slight difference with this, since it is verifiable proposed tech term which once adopted will possibly receive significant coverage to merit standalone page. I agree with your UPE concern also, and like to say watching redirects pages often deal with that. I have many redirects on my Watchlist and reverted such actions on many occasions –Ammarpad (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all verifiable information and useful references into "Top-level domain". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While both comments made after the nom suggest merging, it would be good to come to a consensus about the merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Top-level domain#Proposed domains. I don't believe there's anything here worth merging. The two independent sources in this article just list this proposed TLD in a list of a whole bunch of proposed TLDs some company is asking for and don't draw any attention to it in particular. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.